Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Cops told to ditch phrases like 'policeman' and 'victims of' in 'woke' new guidance
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Simon Parker
Nov 20, 2023, 8:48:50 AM11/20/23
to
On 20/11/2023 11:03, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Am 18/11/2023 um 17:33 schrieb webstump+u...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>>
>>
>> The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a
>> moderator.
>>
>> Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to
>> another contributor.
[snip abusive post]
> A malicious lurker might or might not say that our highly estimated
> honourable member Mr Hayter has a long history of posting unmoderated
> content "abusive or hurtful to another contributor".
The opinions of a "malicious lurker" is unlikely to have any effect or
influence on moderation policy so I am unsure as to why you are
attempting to introduce what they might or might not say on the matter
of moderation?
If a post is approved that you think breaches the moderation policy,
then this is the place to discuss that.
However, simply alleging that a poster "has a long history of posting
unmoderated content" that you believe breaches the moderation policy is
of no use whatsoever.
If you have a recent specific post in mind, then please post details and
it can be looked at.
> I should also like to think that Mr Hayter is thick-skinned enough that
> he would consider this moderation patronizing and totally unnecessary.
Like the statue of Lady Justice atop the Old Bailey, the moderators wear
our symbolic blindfolds when moderating posts.
Manual moderation decisions are made based on the content of the post
only and neither the identity of the sender nor that of the author of
the post to which they are replying is not taken into consideration when
deciding whether to allow or reject the post.
Your post that was rejected was not a borderline post. It was clearly
abusive and was rightly rejected.
Regards
S.P.
> Am 18/11/2023 um 17:33 schrieb webstump+u...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>>
>>
>> The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a
>> moderator.
>>
>> Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to
>> another contributor.
[snip abusive post]
> A malicious lurker might or might not say that our highly estimated
> honourable member Mr Hayter has a long history of posting unmoderated
> content "abusive or hurtful to another contributor".
The opinions of a "malicious lurker" is unlikely to have any effect or
influence on moderation policy so I am unsure as to why you are
attempting to introduce what they might or might not say on the matter
of moderation?
If a post is approved that you think breaches the moderation policy,
then this is the place to discuss that.
However, simply alleging that a poster "has a long history of posting
unmoderated content" that you believe breaches the moderation policy is
of no use whatsoever.
If you have a recent specific post in mind, then please post details and
it can be looked at.
> I should also like to think that Mr Hayter is thick-skinned enough that
> he would consider this moderation patronizing and totally unnecessary.
Like the statue of Lady Justice atop the Old Bailey, the moderators wear
our symbolic blindfolds when moderating posts.
Manual moderation decisions are made based on the content of the post
only and neither the identity of the sender nor that of the author of
the post to which they are replying is not taken into consideration when
deciding whether to allow or reject the post.
Your post that was rejected was not a borderline post. It was clearly
abusive and was rightly rejected.
Regards
S.P.
Simon Parker
Nov 20, 2023, 6:45:09 PM11/20/23
to
On 20/11/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> world, posts like the one above should be rejected and rightly so.
Excellent. Glad to hear it. You expected the post to be rejected and
it was rejected. It seems the moderators were able to give you the
outcome you believe your post deserved. Another satisfied customer.
You're welcome. :-)
> I am
> and I have been complaining about double standards, in other words
> whitelists.
The Charter for ulm clearly states:
"Moderators may use whatever tools they feel appropriate to ensure the
smooth running of the group."
The moderation policy further states:
"The moderators may if they choose operate a list of trusted posters but
any posts from such contributors will be diverted to manual moderation
if the posts contain prescribed "trigger words"."
If you want to abolish the whitelist, you're going to need to issue a
RFD to change the charter as the charter permits it and the moderation
policy includes it.
Not only would I vote against such a proposal but I'd likely resign as a
moderator were it passed as, I've stated previously, I fit Usenet around
my life rather than the other way round and the time required to
manually moderate all posts would be greater than I could commit to so
I'd have no alternative but to step away.
It is possible that abolishing the whitelist would kill the group and as
imperfect as you may think the newsgroup is, in its current form it is
better than either the unmoderated group or no group at all.
And speaking of the unmoderated group, as I've also said previously, I
am subscribed there and try to respond to any posts that aren't eaten by
my spam traps so you can always post there where there's no whitelist
and you may get at least one response. :-)
> But my beef is not with you.
I note that you acknowledge your post is motivated by a grudge rather
than a genuine need to resolve an issue. Whilst I appreciate your
candour, it is also disappointing.
> You always come with on-point
> clarifications, unlike some of your mod colleagues who come with "I am
> the mod, I decide, deal with it".
I can only speak for myself. Other moderators are free to express
themselves as they see fit.
Regards
S.P.
> Am 20/11/2023 um 13:48 schrieb Simon Parker:
>>
>> The opinions of a "malicious lurker" is unlikely to have any effect or
>> influence on moderation policy so I am unsure as to why you are
>> attempting to introduce what they might or might not say on the matter
>> of moderation?
>>
>> If a post is approved that you think breaches the moderation policy,
>> then this is the place to discuss that.
>>
>> However, simply alleging that a poster "has a long history of posting
>> unmoderated content" that you believe breaches the moderation policy
>> is of no use whatsoever.
>>
>> If you have a recent specific post in mind, then please post details
>> and it can be looked at.
>>
>>
>>> I should also like to think that Mr Hayter is thick-skinned enough
>>> that he would consider this moderation patronizing and totally
>>> unnecessary.
>>
>> Like the statue of Lady Justice atop the Old Bailey, the moderators
>> wear our symbolic blindfolds when moderating posts.
>>
>> Manual moderation decisions are made based on the content of the post
>> only and neither the identity of the sender nor that of the author of
>> the post to which they are replying is not taken into consideration
>> when deciding whether to allow or reject the post.
>>
>> Your post that was rejected was not a borderline post. It was clearly
>> abusive and was rightly rejected.
>>
> Simon, I am not complaining that my post was rejected. In an ideal
>>
>> The opinions of a "malicious lurker" is unlikely to have any effect or
>> influence on moderation policy so I am unsure as to why you are
>> attempting to introduce what they might or might not say on the matter
>> of moderation?
>>
>> If a post is approved that you think breaches the moderation policy,
>> then this is the place to discuss that.
>>
>> However, simply alleging that a poster "has a long history of posting
>> unmoderated content" that you believe breaches the moderation policy
>> is of no use whatsoever.
>>
>> If you have a recent specific post in mind, then please post details
>> and it can be looked at.
>>
>>
>>> I should also like to think that Mr Hayter is thick-skinned enough
>>> that he would consider this moderation patronizing and totally
>>> unnecessary.
>>
>> Like the statue of Lady Justice atop the Old Bailey, the moderators
>> wear our symbolic blindfolds when moderating posts.
>>
>> Manual moderation decisions are made based on the content of the post
>> only and neither the identity of the sender nor that of the author of
>> the post to which they are replying is not taken into consideration
>> when deciding whether to allow or reject the post.
>>
>> Your post that was rejected was not a borderline post. It was clearly
>> abusive and was rightly rejected.
>>
> world, posts like the one above should be rejected and rightly so.
Excellent. Glad to hear it. You expected the post to be rejected and
it was rejected. It seems the moderators were able to give you the
outcome you believe your post deserved. Another satisfied customer.
You're welcome. :-)
> I am
> and I have been complaining about double standards, in other words
> whitelists.
The Charter for ulm clearly states:
"Moderators may use whatever tools they feel appropriate to ensure the
smooth running of the group."
The moderation policy further states:
"The moderators may if they choose operate a list of trusted posters but
any posts from such contributors will be diverted to manual moderation
if the posts contain prescribed "trigger words"."
If you want to abolish the whitelist, you're going to need to issue a
RFD to change the charter as the charter permits it and the moderation
policy includes it.
Not only would I vote against such a proposal but I'd likely resign as a
moderator were it passed as, I've stated previously, I fit Usenet around
my life rather than the other way round and the time required to
manually moderate all posts would be greater than I could commit to so
I'd have no alternative but to step away.
It is possible that abolishing the whitelist would kill the group and as
imperfect as you may think the newsgroup is, in its current form it is
better than either the unmoderated group or no group at all.
And speaking of the unmoderated group, as I've also said previously, I
am subscribed there and try to respond to any posts that aren't eaten by
my spam traps so you can always post there where there's no whitelist
and you may get at least one response. :-)
> But my beef is not with you.
I note that you acknowledge your post is motivated by a grudge rather
than a genuine need to resolve an issue. Whilst I appreciate your
candour, it is also disappointing.
> You always come with on-point
> clarifications, unlike some of your mod colleagues who come with "I am
> the mod, I decide, deal with it".
I can only speak for myself. Other moderators are free to express
themselves as they see fit.
Regards
S.P.
billy bookcase
Nov 20, 2023, 7:55:09 PM11/20/23
to
"Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ks16e0...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Like the statue of Lady Justice atop the Old Bailey,
> the moderators wear our symbolic blindfolds when moderating posts.
Ahem
> Like the statue of Lady Justice atop the Old Bailey,
> the moderators wear our symbolic blindfolds when moderating posts.
https://www.silversirens.co.uk/pictures/thumb6_rumpole-of-the-bailey-1978-92-opening-credits.jpg
bb
.
Simon Parker
Nov 24, 2023, 6:24:55 PM11/24/23
to
Lady justice atop the Old Bailey has no blindfold because her "maidenly
form" guarantees her impartiality rendering a blindfold redundant.
None of the moderators of ULM can match this claim therefore I can
assure we that the blindfolds are not rendered redundant by our
"maidenly form".
Regards
S.P.
Roger Hayter
Nov 24, 2023, 7:04:52 PM11/24/23
to
On 24 Nov 2023 at 23:24:51 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I do wonder if she may have her eyes closed. It's a bit hard to tell.
--
Roger Hayter
wrote:
--
Roger Hayter
Jon Ribbens
Nov 24, 2023, 10:15:35 PM11/24/23
to
On 2023-11-24, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 00:55, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ks16e0...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> Like the statue of Lady Justice atop the Old Bailey,
>>> the moderators wear our symbolic blindfolds when moderating posts.
>>
>> Ahem
>>
>> https://www.silversirens.co.uk/pictures/thumb6_rumpole-of-the-bailey-1978-92-opening-credits.jpg
>
> I thank you for the correction.
>
> Lady justice atop the Old Bailey has no blindfold because her "maidenly
> form" guarantees her impartiality rendering a blindfold redundant.
>
> None of the moderators of ULM can match this claim
Rude
> On 21/11/2023 00:55, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ks16e0...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> Like the statue of Lady Justice atop the Old Bailey,
>>> the moderators wear our symbolic blindfolds when moderating posts.
>>
>> Ahem
>>
>> https://www.silversirens.co.uk/pictures/thumb6_rumpole-of-the-bailey-1978-92-opening-credits.jpg
>
> I thank you for the correction.
>
> Lady justice atop the Old Bailey has no blindfold because her "maidenly
> form" guarantees her impartiality rendering a blindfold redundant.
>
> None of the moderators of ULM can match this claim
billy bookcase
Nov 25, 2023, 8:17:35 AM11/25/23
to
"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kscs11...@mid.individual.net...
You'd imagine the spikey helmet might be a bit of a problem
in rooms with low ceilings.
bb
Simon Parker
Nov 27, 2023, 8:42:00 AM11/27/23
to
Christmas lunch, who am I to stop you?
But I'll remind you that people present will be eating. :-)
Regards
S.P.
0 new messages